Right or left why homeless ?

[Coral Rhedd]

Tater, did you know that in the United States, alcoholism is a recognized disability? It has genetic roots. If you have ever seen someone truly in the grip of alcoholism stuggle to get sober, you should understand that these people are not scum. They are sad human beings with a dreadful illness.

 

People like to judge others. We like to look at the frailties of others and say that they are less than we are. I think that is short-sighted. Everyone has a different burden to bear. Being judgmental rarely improves human understanding or improves the world that we all live in together, the rich as well as the poor, the drunk as well as the sober, the sane as well as the mentally ill.

[darth tater]

Programs that force the poor to work at "training wages" in order to collect welfare should be outlawed. Everyone who works should get the standard minimum wage. There should not be lower wages for the disabled or those in workfare training programs -- but there are. Who do these programs benefit? Employers.

 

The is a great deal of difference between the real world of work and training programs. Let's say that as a person on welfare, you are forced into a training program -- usually set up through Vocational Rehab. When you try to apply for real work and you state that your wages at your last job amounted to $2 an hour on your job applications, what chance is that going to give you to get hired?

 

Training programs often taint people's opportunities and out them as disabled, when that is information they should be able to keep to themselves. In small towns, these programs result in people being labeled.

 

Employers do appreciate these programs however. Many of them are fully government subsidized and the employer doesn't have to pay a dime.

 

Welfare benefits are such poor provision that any work that pays less amounts to a form of slavery.

Coral Rhedd is offline Report Bad Post Reply With Quote

 

Coral, I don't know where you came up with the word "scum" to characterize homeless people, but it was not from me.

 

The fact that you have included it in your post, I think, is indicative of an attempt to demonize me because I do not beleieve that the American tax payer, nor the homeless, for that matter are done justice by any automatic or knee jerk justification for being homeless and on welfare.

 

I have said that I have contempt for many who are homeless, but again, "many" is the operative word. I also have contempt for "many" who have abortions and "many" who go to church and "many" who post in discussion forums, but that does not mean that I paint them all with the same brush, as I have attempted to point out "many" times.

 

 

Tater' date=' did you know that in the United States, alcoholism is a recognized disability? It has genetic roots. If you have ever seen someone truly in the grip of alcoholism stuggle to get sober, you should understand that these people are not scum. They are sad human beings with a dreadful illness.

 

People like to judge others. We like to look at the frailties of others and say that they are less than we are. I think that is short-sighted. Everyone has a different burden to bear. Being judgmental rarely improves human understanding or improves the world that we all live in together, the rich as well as the poor, the drunk as well as the sober, the sane as well as the mentally ill.[/quote']

 

Coral, I think these 2 posts pretty well illustrate why the more conservative among us oppose welfare and many other government subsities as it is currently being applied.

 

If it were left to liberals to decide who got what from the government, then any person who made any kind of claim at all, regardless of how weak the support was for that claim, would get compensation from Uncle Sam, and those of us who were willing to work for our living would have to pay the bill.

 

Thank you for your excellent illustration of the problem.

[jutntog1]

I would agree the united states could handle its homeless problem, but not without becoming much more socolistic, and i dont think thats happening soon. the reason housign is cheeper here is a commmon capitalism idea the poorest of all get screwed the moderate and rich get helped vs in socolistic the moderate and poor get the most help while the rich get brought closer to being moderatly or average.

 

as my mom(lol) a homeless shelter executive director says homelessness is a math problem in the united states

if money coming in does not equal housing expensises food expensases child care car payments etc the person becomes in dept or homeless or both, its not usualy lazzy ness or drug addiction or criminal history, (though homelessness does lead to criminal history obvously) that causes it its simply money. anohter intresteding fact i thought id throw at you the average age of a homeless person in the united states (at least my state its all realy simalar im sure) is 10.

[husmusen]

Semag:

 

I fear you are right about where the U.S. is headed.

But don't lose hope, you sometimes make great comebacks.

If someone had told me in 1940 that by 1980 you'd have black people

in high ranking government positions I would have found it hard to

believe. But there you go.

 

I've had the privelidge of living in both a socialist and a semi-socialist

country, I suspect that Darth has never lived in a socialist country.

 

If I was bringing up a child, I would see a socialist country as a

very desirable place to live, because if anything happened to me

I know my family would get looked after. And that's the differance

as I see it.

 

In Australia, we have free healthcare for everyone under 16,

It saves us enourmous amounts of money as we have an extremely

healthy working age populous compared to many other countries.

 

Ultimately you have to choose, whether your approach is

'I'm allright jack, eff you',

or whether you look after eachother.

And ofcourse most people fall somewhere between these.

 

In all these situations you have to be very careful because people

are individuals, you can't just make two boxes

(No-hopers and hard-workers) and fit everyone into it.

 

I think there is a big place for government spending on the homeless,

and I can guarantee you there will be a few people who will try to

take any scheme for a ride. I do not see that as a reason to stop

a program that's also helping sincere people.

I say this for the same reason I wouldn't stop running an import business

just because 0.12% of the containers suffered freight damage.

You can never get such things to 0, so you do what you can, to

prevent it, but you carry on doing your work because it's worth doing.

 

Cheers.

 

P.S.

 

Darth: In the end there will be one of two posibilities,

One all the socialist countries will go under.

Two the capitalist countries will go under.

Which happens first will depend more on reality than on

our own opinions.

 

My own experience has given me the impression that homeless

people are just people like anyone else, and most don't want to be

cold, hungry and homeless. There are exceptions, but there are some

nasty people in every walk of life. I don't see a reason to hold homeless

people to a higher standard of morality than everyone else.

 

I have been tempted to dump on tater several times but for the

same reason I hesitate to dump on homeless, I'll give him the

benefit of the doubt, maybe he has just had really lousy luck meeting

homeless people. I don't know.

Or maybe he needs to watch less Fox News .

 

Cheers.

[darth tater]

Darth: In the end there will be one of two posibilities' date='

One all the socialist countries will go under.

Two the capitalist countries will go under.

Which happens first will depend more on reality than on

our own opinions.

 

My own experience has given me the impression that homeless

people are just people like anyone else, and most don't want to be

cold, hungry and homeless. There are exceptions, but there are some

nasty people in every walk of life. I don't see a reason to hold homeless

people to a higher standard of morality than everyone else.

 

I have been tempted to dump on tater several times but for the

same reason I hesitate to dump on homeless, I'll give him the

benefit of the doubt, maybe he has just had really lousy luck meeting

homeless people. I don't know.

Or maybe he needs to watch less Fox News .

 

Cheers.[/quote']

Or just maybe it is because I don't think that socialism is as good a system as Capitalism.

[Coral Rhedd]

I think we could have a better system if we did a better job of indentifying at risk children. Certain conditions such as below a certain poverty level, and neglect and abuse as well as certain personality and learning problems predispose children to not being able to cope when they are older and enter the world of work.

 

Multiple learning problems combined with a problematic home life, mean that school abilities and social skills will be difficult to acquire. However, instead of getting concentrated help, too many of these children get piecemeal help.

 

A couple of examples:

 

#1

Imagine a girl whose mother has left her alone at age 8 in order to go to work. This child is undernourished and isolated. She begins to show symptoms of depression and anxiety. Her circumstances also make her a prime target for abuse and for being treated as an outcast at school. If she also has a reading or math disorder, her chances of success become very slim.

 

Suppose she was identified as a child at risk and a case worker was assigned to make certain essential needs were met. It might be found that her mother is too exhausted from illness or overwork to attend to her daughter's needs. The immediate obvious need is childcare for the child in her mother's absence and help for the mother in gaining skills that will allow her to satisfy the household budget with one job alone. The caseworker might investigate afterschool programs, sports activities, or things like Girl Scouts and see that transportation was provided. Tutoring might be in order and maybe a special ed teacher who was skilled at inclusion so that the child could progress along with age mates.

 

None of this would cost a great deal. It could be argued that such an intervention is cost effective compared to what it would cost the taxpayers if the girl continued as she is and, feeling neglected and discouraged, began to experiment with drugs or became pregnant at an early age. Children who have goals and can see future possibilites tend to do better in school and continue on to college.

 

#2

This scenario is based upon true circumstances. A five year old boy's parents divorce because they cannot agree upon future goals and discipline for their son. Their divorce is acrimonious. Disagreement over discipline continues with the father becoming even more liberal, allowing his son to become verbally abusive to him and to even hit or kick him. The mother, in reaction, becomes more strict and begins overmonitoring the child. All his activities and meals in her home are very structured and she institutes a seven o'clock bedtime that continues through age 8.

 

The child becomes one angry little boy. His aggression extends to other children and include insults, bullying, and many physical incidents of kicking and hitting other children. At home he pulls a knife on his mother and when she attempts to take it from him, he places it at his throat saying he will kill himself it she does not leave him alone. His learning skills fall behind and a teacher and a counselor identify him as possible Oppositional Defiant Disorder and ADHD and recommend testing. which his mother refuses to allow. He is so opposed to authority and so rude to adults that he begins to spend almost as much time in the principal's office as he does in class.

 

Why isn't this child getting the attention he so clearly needs? His mother is a teacher and she doesn't want him labeled ADHD and refuses to seek treatment either for his learning disorder or his behavior disorder. His Dad has started giving him pot to calm him down.

 

His mother never gives him a moment's privacy and at his father's house, he and his Dad still share the same bed. His father lives on a trust fund, is a pothead, and need not come to the state's attention, because this child is financially well-off.

 

Does anyone share my belief that, at the very least, these folks need parenting classes? Especially since this child has recently discovered the thrills of fire-setting.

 

The little girl in the first scenario is a victim waiting to happen. The little boy in the second scenario is a criminal waiting to happen. Each could easily end up homeless. Neither are likely to become productive citizens without intervention.

 

Too often services are provided end case and worst case. Just like preventative medicine, a little prevention of future disaster would go a long ways and be a good expenditure of public funds.

[husmusen]

Coral:

I think we could have a better system if we did a better job of indentifying at risk children. Certain conditions such as below a certain poverty level, and neglect and abuse as well as certain personality and learning problems predispose children to not being able to cope when they are older and enter the world of work.

 

Multiple learning problems combined with a problematic home life, mean that school abilities and social skills will be difficult to acquire. However, instead of getting concentrated help, too many of these children get piecemeal help.

[/Quote]

 

Well if you think about it, It's no different from saying, it's

easier to pick one weed now, than an acre full next month.

Or a fire not quenched will burn down the house.

It's good practical common sense.

 

But, and in a strange way we are are getting back to the original

question of the thread, it's never done. Time and time again, good

programs are shut down, crap ones get more funding.

 

There is a guy in Melbourne called David Cox, who works with

homeless alchoholics. He was an alchoholic himself from a young age

for several decades.

His program, although small, has about a 90% non-relapse rate,

which is considered good in that field.

 

Kennett(right wing) cut his funding in half, because welfare "is bad"

Then Bracks(Centre-left) cut his funding because he didn't have

a Cert-IV in disability. So he went and got one.

The next year they cut his funding because IIRC he didn't have an a formal

staff flowchart diagram (he as two part time assistants).

 

So last I heard he has 3 drunks in his own house, and he has had to shut the other two. He was treating 15 before.

 

Also, I've found through life that any new department, or program,

or divison can be like an advertisement for all the psychopaths to try

and set up a new fiefdom. And very quickly the internal office

politics becomes far more important than the reason the department

exists in the first place. This happens in both public and private

organisations.

 

"No! We cannot allow him to set up a seperate division for the

distribution of Brazilian parts. He will appoint Makov and that

will give him 4 votes to our 3 on the imports conference. That will

allow him to change a seat on the main conference and we can kiss

our jobs goodbye. That slimy little rat, were onto him now"

 

So it's very hard to do something in an organised way about

homelessness because programs either in public or in private,

are sometimes not decided on merit but more by who knows who and who sleeps with who. IMHO.

 

But enough venting.

 

A serious question.

How do you effectivly balance the right of the state to intervene,

and the right of all the normalish children to not have the state

poking around in their lives.

 

Because the rights of children to not be abused, and the right of

families to arrange their lives as they see fit are both very importnat

rights. If a whole bunch of police and social workers come into a house

and remove a child, if the parents were torturing the child, you've

done a good thing. If it was a false alarm, you've injured a child.

 

It's not a decison making position that I'd covet.

 

Cheers.

[husmusen]

As I said before Darth,

that you like capitalism comes as no huge shock to me,

it is my opinion that socialism(which to me is very different from

communism) has it's own strengths that will see it through but,

over the next century or two, truth will out, and it's possible even

that both capitalism and socialism will join communism in the

meaphorical grave.

 

In the mean time I feel we are like two smooth stones,

endlessy bouncing of eachother, yet never wearing eachother down.

 

Cheers.

[darth tater]

I think we could have a better system if we did a better job of indentifying at risk children. Certain conditions such as below a certain poverty level' date=' and neglect and abuse as well as certain personality and learning problems predispose children to not being able to cope when they are older and enter the world of work.

 

Multiple learning problems combined with a problematic home life, mean that school abilities and social skills will be difficult to acquire. However, instead of getting concentrated help, too many of these children get piecemeal help.

 

A couple of examples:

 

[b']#1[/b]

Imagine a girl whose mother has left her alone at age 8 in order to go to work. This child is undernourished and isolated. She begins to show symptoms of depression and anxiety. Her circumstances also make her a prime target for abuse and for being treated as an outcast at school. If she also has a reading or math disorder, her chances of success become very slim.

 

Suppose she was identified as a child at risk and a case worker was assigned to make certain essential needs were met. It might be found that her mother is too exhausted from illness or overwork to attend to her daughter's needs. The immediate obvious need is childcare for the child in her mother's absence and help for the mother in gaining skills that will allow her to satisfy the household budget with one job alone. The caseworker might investigate afterschool programs, sports activities, or things like Girl Scouts and see that transportation was provided. Tutoring might be in order and maybe a special ed teacher who was skilled at inclusion so that the child could progress along with age mates.

 

None of this would cost a great deal. It could be argued that such an intervention is cost effective compared to what it would cost the taxpayers if the girl continued as she is and, feeling neglected and discouraged, began to experiment with drugs or became pregnant at an early age. Children who have goals and can see future possibilites tend to do better in school and continue on to college.

 

#2

This scenario is based upon true circumstances. A five year old boy's parents divorce because they cannot agree upon future goals and discipline for their son. Their divorce is acrimonious. Disagreement over discipline continues with the father becoming even more liberal, allowing his son to become verbally abusive to him and to even hit or kick him. The mother, in reaction, becomes more strict and begins overmonitoring the child. All his activities and meals in her home are very structured and she institutes a seven o'clock bedtime that continues through age 8.

 

The child becomes one angry little boy. His aggression extends to other children and include insults, bullying, and many physical incidents of kicking and hitting other children. At home he pulls a knife on his mother and when she attempts to take it from him, he places it at his throat saying he will kill himself it she does not leave him alone. His learning skills fall behind and a teacher and a counselor identify him as possible Oppositional Defiant Disorder and ADHD and recommend testing. which his mother refuses to allow. He is so opposed to authority and so rude to adults that he begins to spend almost as much time in the principal's office as he does in class.

 

Why isn't this child getting the attention he so clearly needs? His mother is a teacher and she doesn't want him labeled ADHD and refuses to seek treatment either for his learning disorder or his behavior disorder. His Dad has started giving him pot to calm him down.

 

His mother never gives him a moment's privacy and at his father's house, he and his Dad still share the same bed. His father lives on a trust fund, is a pothead, and need not come to the state's attention, because this child is financially well-off.

 

Does anyone share my belief that, at the very least, these folks need parenting classes? Especially since this child has recently discovered the thrills of fire-setting.

 

The little girl in the first scenario is a victim waiting to happen. The little boy in the second scenario is a criminal waiting to happen. Each could easily end up homeless. Neither are likely to become productive citizens without intervention.

 

Too often services are provided end case and worst case. Just like preventative medicine, a little prevention of future disaster would go a long ways and be a good expenditure of public funds.

 

 

I quite agree that there are many parents who are either unable or unwilling to be good parents and I support removing the child from that environment and placing it in a home where it's needs can be met.

[darth tater]

As I said before Darth' date='

that you like capitalism comes as no huge shock to me,

it is my opinion that socialism(which to me is very different from

communism) has it's own strengths that will see it through but,

over the next century or two, truth will out, and it's possible even

that both capitalism and socialism will join communism in the

meaphorical grave.

 

In the mean time I feel we are like two smooth stones,

endlessy bouncing of eachother, yet never wearing eachother down.

 

Cheers.[/quote']

 

Even the most die hard Capitalists would agree that there are instances where socialistic programs do more good than harm.

 

The issue is one of when is enough enough?

 

In my opinion, the way the welfare system is implemented in the US is a mournful failure and a gross misuse of funds. Funds that could very well be used to help the poor, rather than make the poor more dependent upon the nanny state.

 

The fact that a Socalist and a Capitalist can not agree on when enough is indeed enough should not be a surprise to anyone, least of all you or I.

[husmusen]

Darth:

In my opinion, the way the welfare system is implemented in the US is a mournful failure and a gross misuse of funds. Funds that could very well be used to help the poor, rather than make the poor more dependent upon the nanny state.

 

The fact that a Socalist and a Capitalist can not agree on when enough is indeed enough should not be a surprise to anyone, least of all you or I.

 

Indeed,

Nor should we fall into the falacy that there can only be one succesful

model of state.

 

For all it's problems, the USA is not the worst country in the world by

any means.

At the same time, countries like Sweden and Australia while socialist,

Sweden more so than Australia, are in the top 20 economies in the

world, not bad for countries with 9 million and 21 million in population.

 

Neither system is perfect, but neither are abject failures.

I feel that long term socialism will prove more stable, I think of

it as the sweet spot between capitalism and communism, possesing

the strengths of both, and that the synergy of these combat

the weakness of each. Private property lends flexibility, but state

welfare protects.

 

Cheers.

[darth tater]

Darth:

 

 

Indeed' date='

Nor should we fall into the falacy that there can only be one succesful

model of state.

 

For all it's problems, the USA is not the worst country in the world by

any means.

At the same time, countries like Sweden and Australia while socialist,

Sweden more so than Australia, are in the top 20 economies in the

world, not bad for countries with 9 million and 21 million in population.

 

Neither system is perfect, but neither are abject failures.

I feel that long term socialism will prove more stable, I think of

it as the sweet spot between capitalism and communism, possesing

the strengths of both, and that the synergy of these combat

the weakness of each. Private property lends flexibility, but state

welfare protects.

 

Cheers.[/quote']

 

 

I have no desire to get into a discussion about the relative merits of Socialism versus Capitalism. But I would point out that Sweden produces less than 3/4 of the pr. capita GDP that the US produces pr. capita. Also that Sweden is a Capitalist country that does indeed have a lot of socialistic

programs.

 

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html

 

One would wonder how much help their socalistic programs are to their economy.

[husmusen]

Interesting link, still browsing but while scanning the

American entry I spotted this :

 

At the same time, they face higher barriers to entry in their rivals' home markets than the barriers to entry of foreign firms in US markets.

 

I'll send it of to the Australian BHP steel mills as I figure they

need a good laugh. You see the Americans have near completely locked

Australia out of steel mainly on the grounds that US steel is less efficient

than the Australian steel producers, and US manufacturers were

starting to buy Australian. I suppose it sucks for them(US manufacturers)

too.

 

The US producers reckon they need at least 5 years to refine there

plants, because they couldn't be bothered doing the forward planning.

So the US capitalist system rewards them for their lack of foresight.

 

Actually I might send it off to the sugar farmes as well, they'll get a good laugh too.

 

I understand why the USA does this, they don't want their manufacturing

to get stomped on, but the puritan whinging when other countries do the

same is always amusing.

 

Hey now this is interesting,

Inspite of Swedens enourmously more generous unemployment benefits,

we have the same unemployment rate as the US, hence good

unemployment benefits do not cause unemployment.

 

Cheers.

 

Ps from the link,

Aided by peace and neutrality for the whole 20th century, Sweden has achieved an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits.

 

Like I said, the best of both worlds.

[darth tater]

Interesting link' date=' still browsing but while scanning the

American entry I spotted this :

 

[b']At the same time, they face higher barriers to entry in their rivals' home markets than the barriers to entry of foreign firms in US markets. [/b]

 

I'll send it of to the Australian BHP steel mills as I figure they

need a good laugh. You see the Americans have near completely locked

Australia out of steel mainly on the grounds that US steel is less efficient

than the Australian steel producers, and US manufacturers were

starting to buy Australian. I suppose it sucks for them(US manufacturers)

too.

 

The US producers reckon they need at least 5 years to refine there

plants, because they couldn't be bothered doing the forward planning.

So the US capitalist system rewards them for their lack of foresight.

 

Actually I might send it off to the sugar farmes as well, they'll get a good laugh too.

 

I understand why the USA does this, they don't want their manufacturing

to get stomped on, but the puritan whinging when other countries do the

same is always amusing.

 

Hey now this is interesting,

Inspite of Swedens enourmously more generous unemployment benefits,

we have the same unemployment rate as the US, hence good

unemployment benefits do not cause unemployment.

 

Cheers.

 

 

Well, as I said before, I am not going to engage in a Socialism/Capitalism debate here--or elsewhere.

 

I have already done that for so long that it has lost all appeal to me.

 

One may as well debate the relitive merits of Catholicism versus protestantism for all the good that would be gained in changing anyone's mind.

 

I would only point out that as a wealth producer, Capitalism is the hands down winner, as a study of the provided web site will attest.

[husmusen]

If raw GDP is the whole of life then, perhaps America comes out ahead.

 

But life is more than gold coins and bank notes.

At least it is to me.

 

And as the same links will attest, in Sweden we get more life.

 

Cheers.

[Coral Rhedd]

I quite agree that there are many parents who are either unable or unwilling to be good parents and I support removing the child from that environment and placing it in a home where it's needs can be met.

 

You must think there is a long line of good people waiting to adopt troubled eight year olds. I can assure that children generally like the parents they originally have. And I can also assure you that there are many solutions cheaper than foster care.

 

What is your objection to providing help for the families that exist so that they can become better parents? Surely keeping families together if possible is a positive value.

[darth tater]

If raw GDP is the whole of life then' date=' perhaps America comes out ahead.

 

But life is more than gold coins and bank notes.

At least it is to me.

 

And as the same links will attest, in Sweden we get more life.

 

Cheers.[/quote']

 

All I am pointing out is that Socialism tends to dampen an economy and a dampened economy cannot reward it's citizens with as much personal wealth as a dry one can.

 

In my opinion.

[Coral Rhedd]

Coral:

 

But' date=' and in a strange way we are are getting back to the original

question of the thread, it's never done. Time and time again, good

programs are shut down, crap ones get more funding.

 

There is a guy in Melbourne called David Cox, who works with

homeless alchoholics. He was an alchoholic himself from a young age

for several decades.

His program, although small, has about a 90% non-relapse rate,

which is considered good in that field.

 

Kennett(right wing) cut his funding in half, because welfare "is bad"

Then Bracks(Centre-left) cut his funding because he didn't have

a Cert-IV in disability. So he went and got one.

The next year they cut his funding because IIRC he didn't have an a formal

staff flowchart diagram (he as two part time assistants).

 

So last I heard he has 3 drunks in his own house, and he has had to shut the other two. He was treating 15 before.

[/quote']

 

A ninety percent non-relapse rate is excellent.

 

Heaven forbid that one former drunk should spend government money creating other former drunks. Society is very unforgiving.

 

Also, I've found through life that any new department, or program,

or divison can be like an advertisement for all the psychopaths to try

and set up a new fiefdom. And very quickly the internal office

politics becomes far more important than the reason the department

exists in the first place. This happens in both public and private

organisations.

 

Sociopaths love social welfare programs. Oh not not the ones receiving the welfare, but the sociopaths who get to distribute it. They not only have power over mostly helpless people, but they can usually shine their own careers without much scrutiny. The appeals process when people are subject to systemic abuse is inadequate and not widely advertised.

 

I was recently involved in a case where a man was denied Vocational Rehabilitation for very specious reasons and his neither his voc rehab counselor or her supervisor informed him of the appeals procedure despite his request that they do so. I told him -- even though that is not my role.

 

So it's very hard to do something in an organised way about

homelessness because programs either in public or in private,

are sometimes not decided on merit but more by who knows who and who sleeps with who. IMHO.

 

Yes. And part of the problem is the great anxiety that someone low on the totem pole will get something for nothing.

 

A serious question.

How do you effectivly balance the right of the state to intervene,

and the right of all the normalish children to not have the state

poking around in their lives.

 

This is a real concern because the state should not be allowed to intervene for certain reasons. For instance they should not be able to target people demographically. As it is now, the poor who seek benefits come under great scrutiny as parents. There is no evidence that poor people are worst parents than people with money -- except when providing those things for which money is handy.

 

On the other hand, in one instance I cited (the violent little boy) it is clear that there is such trouble there that not intervening makes no sense. The problem is exactly that the system is focused upon abuse and not the prevention of abuse.

 

And the costs of abuse -- a not just talking about parental abuse here but the creation of abusers -- are enormous. I have never spoken with a homeless woman who did not have abuse of some sort in her background. This could be a fluke, I suppose, but to me it raises certain concerns.

 

Because the rights of children to not be abused, and the right of

families to arrange their lives as they see fit are both very importnat

rights.

 

Correct. It is very tricky.

 

If a whole bunch of police and social workers come into a house

and remove a child, if the parents were torturing the child, you've

done a good thing. If it was a false alarm, you've injured a child.

 

And that is why identifying children at risk should have a different response. Not one of removing the child from the home or even one of making accusations, but one of being helpful to build stronger families.

 

To be honest, it creeps me out a little too. We don't want a world with all kinds of unnecessary government scrutiny, but we do want a fair world. I cannot see why the poor get accused of being bad parents simply because they are poor and have their children removed from their homes for financial reasons, while the rich may rear their children as they please.

 

It's not a decison making position that I'd covet.

 

Even less, I covet the decision to remove a child from the home simply because his single mother cannot find a job that pays enough to allow her to afford child care.

[darth tater]

You must think there is a long line of good people waiting to adopt troubled eight year olds. I can assure that children generally like the parents they originally have. And I can also assure you that there are many solutions cheaper than foster care.

 

What is your objection to providing help for the families that exist so that they can become better parents? Surely keeping families together if possible is a positive value.

 

My objection would be that if a parent is not fit to be a parent, pouring tax money into that household will not cause them to become good parents. Therefore, some system must be employed to seperate the bad parents from the unlucke parents.

 

If a parent is temporarily short on funds or has been ill or other ligitimate reasons for not being able to perform their duty to their children, then perhaps there is a reason to advance some cash to help out, but if it is a chronic condition, then I think that children should be seperated from the parents and placed in homes that will provide better role models for them.

 

Is no such homes are available, then they should be placed in institutions where their needs will be provided for and their education completed.

 

But the parents should not be allowed to use their children as a bargaining pawn to get money from the government in order to buy drugs or alcohol for themselves, as now happens all too often.

[Coral Rhedd]

Hey now this is interesting' date='

Inspite of Swedens enourmously more generous unemployment benefits,

we have the same unemployment rate as the US, hence good

unemployment benefits do not cause unemployment.

 

[/quote']

 

Could this be because, despite some statements to the contrary, people really like to work, like to be productive, and like to make a contribution to their communities?

 

I have worked in the employment field with people who have wept because they couldn't get a job despite the fact that other circumstances left them provided for. I have worked with mentally retarded people who rubbed their hand with glee at the prospect of employment and the independence it provides. I have worked with poor people who have put down SELF-SUFFICIENCY in big capital letter and underlined in it forms that asked why they wished to be employed.

 

When the job is a good match for the ability of the person performing it, IMHO, happiness results.

[Coral Rhedd]

Is no such homes are available' date=' then they should be placed in institutions where their needs will be provided for and their education completed.

[/quote']

 

Institutionalization is very bad for children under 12. There is some evidence that it can be helpful for Behavior Disordered teenagers. In my opinion and in my experience removing non-abused children from their homes creates a nightmare of emotional problems for these children. These problems are passed on to society.

 

But the parents should not be allowed to use their children as a bargaining pawn to get money from the government in order to buy drugs or alcohol for themselves, as now happens all too often.

 

Parents with serious substance abuse problems often have their children removed temporarily from the home and the parents are required to get treatment. Treatment is exactly what people with these problems need. However, they often get too many chances to get their act together at the expense of the welfare of the child. We need more expeditious methods of terminating parental rights when it becomes clear that this is in the best interests of the child.

 

However, if you think parents with substance abuse problems do not love their children or that their children do not love them, you should do my volunteer work for awhile. These circumstances are heart-wrenching.

 

People have lots of motives for their behavior besides money. It is rarely a case of parents simply using their children as "bargaining pawns."

[darth tater]

Institutionalization is very bad for children under 12. There is some evidence that it can be helpful for Behavior Disordered teenagers. In my opinion and in my experience[/b'] removing non-abused children from their homes creates a nightmare of emotional problems for these children. These problems are passed on to society.

 

But what of the nightmare of leaving the child in a home where drugs and alcohol abuse is a daily event? Where the children are sometimes prostituted to provide money to sustain the habits of their parents? Certainly it is traumatic to take a child away from it's parents, but many times it is the lesser of the two traumas.

 

Parents with serious substance abuse problems often have their children removed temporarily from the home and the parents are required to get treatment. Treatment is exactly what people with these problems need. However, they often get too many chances to get their act together at the expense of the welfare of the child. We need more expeditious methods of terminating parental rights when it becomes clear that this is in the best interests of the child.

 

However, if you think parents with substance abuse problems do not love their children or that their children do not love them, you should do my volunteer work for awhile. These circumstances are heart-wrenching.

 

People have lots of motives for their behavior besides money. It is rarely a case of parents simply using their children as "bargaining pawns."

 

Some of these parents do indeed love their children, but is that a sufficient reason to allow them to continue to conduct themselves in such a manner as to gaurantee that their children will grow into copies of themselves? With all the weaknesses and drug problems that their parents have?

 

I think it far better for the children that they be seperated from this type of parent and thereby have a chance at a normal life.

[Coral Rhedd]

If a parent is temporarily short on funds or has been ill or other ligitimate reasons for not being able to perform their duty to their children' date=' then perhaps there is a reason to advance some cash to help out, but if it is a chronic condition, then I think that children should be seperated from the parents and placed in homes that will provide better role models for them.

[/quote']

 

I want to return to this comment of yours Tater to relate a recent experience of mine that is troubling me.

 

Yesterday a friend of mine visited me and brought news that she has been officially diagnosed with MS. She is naturally devastated. I am devastated for her as well. I held her while she sobbed for at least 5 minutes.

 

Here is something of her life:

 

She escaped a marriage in which her ex husband was sexually abusive to her daughters. When she found out about the abuse she took all necessary steps to protect her daughters. Two of the children have serious disabilities. One is Bipolar with Lupus and the other is OCD with Anorexia. Her youngest son is a true gift. He is the sweetest and most normal little boy I know.

 

Right now, my friend is employed at a low-paying job in an assisted living center. Everyone there loves her because she is so patient and kind, and she loves her job. Depending upon the progress of her disease, she may be able to keep her job for some time. But her condition is chronic and and MS has a highly erratic path to a rather predictable end.

 

Her greatest fear is that she might lose custody of her children due to her disease. This is hardly unheard of. It happens frequently.

 

Kathy's children are her whole life. Don't misunderstand; she is sometimes too lenient, but other than that she is an exemplary mother who has made such sacrifices for her children that few people are ever called upon to make.

 

I contend that she should never lose her children due to her illness. I don't care if she is supported by tax money the rest of their lives. Circumstances have already capriciously punished this woman far more than I have room to describe in this post.

 

What is your response to this hard case?

[Coral Rhedd]

But what of the nightmare of leaving the child in a home where drugs and alcohol abuse is a daily event? Where the children are sometimes prostituted to provide money to sustain the habits of their parents? Certainly it is traumatic to take a child away from it's parents' date=' but many times it is the lesser of the two traumas.

[/quote']

 

Serious drug or alcohol abuse is almost always by it's very nature abusive to children. So is domestic violence, even though children might not be the actual recipients of the violence.

 

I think there are few cases that we would not agree upon in terms of severing parental rights. We might part company as to whether or not the parents should be given an intial chance to get their acts together while their children are in state custody. I would not wince from permanently separating these children from their parents if they did not stay the course in treatment. However, all these children need to find homes, not institutions and not long term foster care. Already most adoptions of older children are given government financial support. If the state becomes proactive about terminating parental rights in these instances (now they decidedly are not) then it would cost more taxpayer's money, not less.

 

Some of these parents do indeed love their children, but is that a sufficient reason to allow them to continue to conduct themselves in such a manner as to gaurantee that their children will grow into copies of themselves? With all the weaknesses and drug problems that their parents have?

 

This depends upon what you mean. There are no perfect parents. I do not believe the use of an illegal substance automatically means poor parenting.

 

Let's take a look at a few substances:

 

Meth: You better believe that if the parents are running a meth lab, their kids should be out of that home. If the parent has tried meth but not become addicted, then not necessarily.

 

Pot: Gimme a break! Just because the government deems this an illegal substance does not mean its use automatically makes bad parents. Give me a parent who uses a little weed over a parent who drinks too much alcohol any day.

 

Alcohol: Alcoholic parents are some of the worst. Physical and sexual abuse often accompany the abuse of alcohol. Yes it's a legal substance, but children are not protected enough from alcoholic parents. Even some social drinkers impact their children when they are under the influence.

 

Tobacco: Perfectly legal, but second hand smoke kills. If I were a judge in a custody battle and I had two equally good parents to choose from, the nonsmoker would win with me.

 

Legal prescriptions: Ah yes, these can be serious drugs. SSRIs can actually worsen some depressions. Oxycontin is a great pain reliever and allows many who suffer from chronic pain to lead productive lives (sometimes as radio personalities), but has a high potential for abuse. Even medicines for asthma and ADHD can be abuse, to say nothing of the opiates that doctors and nurses all too frequently avail themselves of. Most of the people I now who had serious drug problems with pharmaceuticals were in the medical profession. Ever try to take a doctor's kid away from him?

 

I think it far better for the children that they be seperated from this type of parent and thereby have a chance at a normal life.

 

So tell me, Tater, what is a normal life? It is that elusive thing that many of us, looking back upon our childhoods simply didn't have. Many of us overcome our childhoods.

 

I promise you, if you want to give every child in America a normal life, it is really going to cost us.

 

Nevertheless I admire your commitment to this particular value. Family values are an essential to a good American life.

[darth tater]

I want to return to this comment of yours Tater to relate a recent experience of mine that is troubling me.

 

Yesterday a friend of mine visited me and brought news that she has been officially diagnosed with MS. She is naturally devastated. I am devastated for her as well. I held her while she sobbed for at least 5 minutes.

 

Here is something of her life:

 

She escaped a marriage in which her ex husband was sexually abusive to her daughters. When she found out about the abuse she took all necessary steps to protect her daughters. Two of the children have serious disabilities. One is Bipolar with Lupus and the other is OCD with Anorexia. Her youngest son is a true gift. He is the sweetest and most normal little boy I know.

 

Right now' date=' my friend is employed at a low-paying job in an assisted living center. Everyone there loves her because she is so patient and kind, and she loves her job. Depending upon the progress of her disease, she may be able to keep her job for some time. But her condition is chronic and and MS has a highly erratic path to a rather predictable end.

 

Her greatest fear is that she might lose custody of her children due to her disease. This is hardly unheard of. It happens frequently.

 

Kathy's children are her whole life. Don't misunderstand; she is sometimes too lenient, but other than that she is an exemplary mother who has made such sacrifices for her children that few people are ever called upon to make.

 

I contend that she should never lose her children due to her illness. I don't care if she is supported by tax money the rest of their lives. Circumstances have already capriciously punished this woman far more than I have room to describe in this post.

 

What is your response to this hard case?[/quote']

 

 

Coral, nobody wants to see a person such as you have discribed here lose her children because she has been diagnosed with MS and has a low paying job.

 

That is not what I mean by a "chronic condition." What I meant is a person who is not a fit parent and who continues to be unfot for parenthood in spite of all the money that can be poured on his/her problems.

 

We all know that there are people who are in dire straits through of no fault of their own. They are not the problem. The problem are the people who abuse the system and in the bargain abuse their children--sometimes with the aid of their case workers--because it is simply a way of life for them.

 

These things happen far too often for anyone of consience to be comfortable with the welfare programs the way they are administered today.